Argentina Fearing Nuke on Falklands

Yeah. Probably from the UK itself.
And how did it get from A to B?

But what reason would the U.K have for nuking Falkland.

Er, I knew that.
The point is that the departure and end points are both British.

I would personally say the Argentinians are jelly. They wish they had nuclear subs. I would strike it up as a publicity stunt by the Argentinians. Briton gets plenty of attention and is a very important and powerful country. Argentina is well, lets just not go there. Briton has NATO who does Argentina have? Unless they get a Hitler crazy type leader they would not be so stupid to try to start another war. This is just a very bad cry for attention on the part of Argentina.

Not to mention the prestige hit they get for uncontested claims.

Yeah, the departure and end points are both British.
So A is British and B is British. But the area between them is not.
My point is that they moved a nuclear-armed sub through international waters.
The Treaty of Tlatelolco probably pretains to this situation, as it prohibits the movement of nuclear material to the Carribean and Latin America.
Beyond that, moving material like that through international waters is looked down upon by the international community. It makes the UK look like it is not serious about the matter of non-proliferation

If this allegation is proven to be true, then the US will have to respond. Either they will go back on their word of non-proliferation, or they chastise the UK for the implication that they will use a nuclear device.

as you say international waters are not territory of a country so the treaty is not touched.

erm no it is neither looked down upon nor is it against the non-proliferation treaties. Russian and US subs regularly cruise under the north pole, almost every nation that has subs capable of firing nuklear-warheads regularly drive through internatinal waters with it, it is nothing special and nobody gives a shit.

Sending nuclear subs into potentialy hostile places is in no shape or form a implication to use a nuclear device, theese subs carry other means of atack(cruise missiles) also how many nuclear subs where near irak when operation "enduring freedom" started? was this an implication to use a nuclear device? no that is just nonesense. Also the us will have to respond? why? again the argentinians are stirring shit up not the uk. And again the uk is more valuable to the us then the argentinians. The us will do jack shit. Also the reason they probably sent a nuklear sub is because it is freaking far away from the next uk base, so they need a ship that can cruise there alone without support for a long time.

True, they are two different matters, but the Falklands are under the Treaty.

'Capible' and 'armed' are two different things. Provide for me proof that any of those subs are armed with nuclear devices.

'Nuclear' and 'nuclear-armed' are two different things. The former is simply powered by nuclear reactors. The latter is the one with the actual devices.

The US has repeatedly stated its support of non-proliferation. Non-proliferation can include the transport of nuclear material or devices to areas that do not have them. If they are serious about it, they will have the same duty to the UK in this scenerio as China would have if N. Korea moved around nuclear material. That is to say, in order not to look hypocritical, they will have to condemn the suggestion that the UK would use a nuclear device. Bear in mind that, while the UK is more important to the US than Argentina, the whole world is watching. If the US were to back the movement of nuclear devices then they would lose face with the entirety of the international community, excluding the UK of course.
Look at Taiwan. Do you see the US moving nuclear missles to Taiwan? Or Japan? Or the Phillipines? I would put forth that there is a much higher chance that China would attack Taiwan than Argentina attacking the Falklands. Yet the US doesn't move nuclear materials to their 'allies' in the Pacific around China, do they? And think of the multitudes of small islands under US jurisdiction in the Pacific. Does the US move missles there?
Also, remember the Monroe Doctrine? Yeah...

Last time I checked the Atlantic Ocean wasn't part of South America or the Carribean.

Right, so the other nuclear powers just keep their subs moored in home port all the time do they? Gimme a break.

The US will do fuck all. Oh, and should we chastise them for placing nuclear weapons in Europe??

They can go for a long time. A sub has enough fuel to drive it for 3-6 months.

Erm did you even read the article? we are talking about a sub that has the capacity of carrying "trident" missiles the uk does not want to station them on the islands (would be stupid from a strategical standpoint). you provide me the evidence that the uk one is armed with it! Also ever heared of the 6th fleet. it has many many ships capable of fielding nuklear devices, probably most that are capable thereoff will also have a few, specialy subs because they are the safest way to carry them.

oh well thank you but it doesn't matter for this case. all nuklear powered subs are capable of fielding nuklear devices, its part of the strategical concept of nuklear armed subs.

Absolute nonesense, if america would raise their voice to this, it would mean that they can't move their own nuklear warheads on subs in international waters, we will never ever see this. bear in mind that the us has the biggest fleet of subs capable of transporting nuklear weaponsystems. if the us objects to this then they will seam like hypocrites, not in the other way arround like you claim.

Dear god no, now we are really comparing oranges and bananas aren't we? non-proliferation is only possible between atleast two countries. In your scenario the us would station the missiles on hawai or wake island. GB stationing missiles in falklands would not beequal to usa and taiwan. But then again the us stationed nukes in 2 dozens of countries in the last decades....(turkey,germany, etc.) Also btw. the us regularly passes through the sea betwen taiwan and china, and yes even with subs and other ships that are armed with nukes. It is one of the hotest spots of the world, never heard of that? i am surprised.
But all of this is irrelevant since the uk does not station missiles on the falklands the article only talks about accusations made by the argentinians of a sub, that may or may not have tridents on board. Even if the ship has them as long as it is in international waters it is still english territory.

No, the Atlantic is not part of South America or the Carribean. But the Treaty prohibits the movement of nuclear material to Latin America and the Carribean. The Falklands are part of Latin America. The UK admitted as much by SIGNING THE TREATY.

The movement or lack thereof of submarines, nuclear or not, is not the point that I was making. The movement of NUCLEAR-ARMED submarines is the point that I was making. There is a distinction between an nuclear sub and a nuclear-armed sub.

Which alot of people do. There are many anti-proliferation groups, some of which Obama has personally expressed his support of. If he doesn't condemn the UK's actions, he is going back on his words, which will add insult to injury in the eyes of the international community.

Have you been reading my posts since that one?

No, I did not.
I just read the title and set up a hypothetical of what would happen if it were true that the UK had moved a nuclear-armed sub into the area.
Again, capible and actually carrying are two different things. Many things are capible of moving a nuclear device. Wheater they are actually carrying it is another matter entirely. I have not yet seen proof presented here that the 6th Fleet is carrying nuclear missles.

And the US being hypocritical in their military operations is something new? Or that they break international treaties for the sake of 'freedom'?
In any case, the US is already being a hypocrite on almost all the non-proliferation treaties that they have signed. In this case, they are actually 'between a rock and a hard place', as they say. The US needs to forward the non-proliferation agenda, but also keep peace and relations with the UK and be able to find loopholes to move their own nuclear materials.
Also, please provide proof that the US has been moving nuclear material since the Cold War ended. NATO has a program for sharing nuclear devices, but to my knowledge, said devices have never even been implicated that they would be used.

Clearly, you understood about half the post.
The point was that there are numerous treaties that prohibit the movement of nuclear material to places that do not have them.
Neither Taiwan nor the Falklands have nuclear devices. Moving them there is a direct violation of those treaties. Officially speaking, both the Taiwanese and the Chinese disapprove of the US movement of nuclear devices into the Taiwan Strait. For that matter, a number of countries object to it.

I am well aware of the US actions in the Taiwan Strait, probably moreso than you are. However, I require you to present proof that the US nuclear devices into the region have not since been removed. But you bring up an interesting difference in the situations, yes? That Argentina does not possess nuclear capibility, but the UK does and the UK is apparently moving in a direction to use said capibility. Bear in mind that the US had moved nuclear devices to the Pacific theater to counter China, but they did not place them in the hands of their allies.

That being said, all you have proven thus far is that my comparison was faulty.

This statement make no sense whatsoever.




To sum up:
Basically, I didn't actually read the article and instead relied on the relevent facts as presented by the OP and those others who commented.

I held that the UK probably did not move a nuclear device to the Falklands,
that they would probably not be stupid enough to use it,
that if they did move it, in accordance with multiple treaties on non-proliferation, they would be in violation of said treaties,
that the UK would be in a position of hyporcrisy for moving nuclear materials whist also being a supporter of non-proliferation,

that the US would have to respond in a negative way if it was revealed to be true due to their own non-proliferation stance,
that the US is hypocritical for supporting non-proliferation, whist also maintaining the most widely-spread supply of nuclear materials in several world theaters,
that the US is doing said movement in spite of heavy international disapproval,

decides to remain actively seized of the matter.*

*Like if you understand where that came from.

We won't nuke them. I highly doubt we have sent a Vanguard-class down there, especially against a nation as pathetic as Argentina. All we have down there are the Type-45, four Eurofighters, the actual garrison and maybe a Trafalgar-class. Along with Rapier SAMs.

Argentina is using this as means to have a common goal, because everyone in Argentina hates the English.

Falklanders are British, not English. Get your terms right.

Im sorry does it look like I care about the god damn fucks names across the sea, I could bloody give a shit if they where Scottish, Welsh, Irish, or fuck god damn Paki the truth of the matter is the Argentinean people hate them with a passion, so I could care less what fucking terms I use for a Island of fucks.

Using profanity doesn't make you smarter nor more powerful; In fact, it makes you look stupid.
The problem here is that Argentina thinks they have a claim on the islands, which they don't. In fact, most of the Falklanders want to remain British. The islands are not even part of Argentina in any way, according to geography. The islands are considered an archipelago and are 350 miles away from the South American mainland.

When did it ever once appear that I wanted to look more smarter (hell I am among one of the biggest fucking dumb asses on the forums even more so then JFK the Commie) and more powerful, yeah mostly because im in the mood to break peoples legs and shove it down there throats till they die, but other then that the point remains who bloody cares.

But yeah I know that Falklands want to be British, everyone knows that even the Argentineans know that they are just making a big deal about this to have something to complain about as a whole, its really very very very simple.

UK has no chance of nuking the world super power of argentinia, if they did then the world would be thrown into WW XXVIII